Button opens, SB 3bet, we cap with A3 in the BB. All call.

Flop: Q8Q
Check, we bet, call, fold.

Turn: K
We bet, call.

River: 7
We check and fold.

yeah seems fine

If you count up the value combinations i'd estimate you would only need around 1 or 2 suited connectors to be bluffing optimally on the river. (ie: JTs/T9s) which obviously make better bluffs.

The turn though seems like it would probably be a check/fold at least fractionally.

This hand is obviously well above my pay grade; can someone explain the cap with A3s? I'd fold that in a second -- is that too tight?

I like the cap PF if you know that SB knows that the BTN knows that he's stealing (inception). Plus having position on the 3-bettor is nice.

As played, I might payoff on the end because his hand reeks of either JT/J9 or a Queen. Also I never fold anyway, so whatev.

Yes that is too tight

Above stakes I've played but

chk/c > bet/fold > chk/fold > c/r for me on river as played

PF is fold for me but I play bad.

4 bet range for me PF definitely needs to be expanded/improved since I call 3 100% of range if not folding in BB.

As played, if bicyclekick thinks its fine probably expertly played as default?

What are you check/folding if not this?

I think the turn is more worth debating. Unless you never check the turn with any of your range this is going to be the most viable check/fold for the same reason the river is. You bluff any hands with less showdown value since they have straight draws, and anything stronger would be either a bet or a check/call.

I think could probably split up your A2-A7s as sometimes check/folds or bet/folds on the turn, sometimes check/folds on the river.

What about folding AJ or AT?

could be better. You do reduce the number of JT bluffs but it also nips at hands like KJ/KT/JJ/TT which are likely value hands. I think it's probably close to a wash.

it also seems a bit of a problem to be folding aj and calling a3 when AT is very close to being one of his bluffs.

JT is the most obvious bluff but ther'es possibly not enough of them to construct an optimal bluff ratio. he could also get there with J9s/T9s and call two streets which would make better bluffs, but AT is basically one pip below that and it wouldn't shock me to see AT take a stab in which case folding AJ while calling A3 would be pretty tragic.

Now I'm truly confused.

Why would you fold AJ and call with A3? Isn't it pretty clear that your calling range should be continuous and strictly higher than better than your folding range? (ie, no overlap / interleaving)

There is so much about this hand that I am not understanding.

I don't like your pre-flop decision to cap. I would fold here. If you were 3-betting against a lone button raiser, then that would be fine and standard. However, once the sb assumes initiative and 3 bets, then your hand doesn't fare well against their combined ranges.

burning a lot of ev folding

Can you explain this a bit more? What's the logic to get to this conclusion?

I understand that the button's range is super-wide. But what's a reasonable range for the SB? Does A3s really fare that well in this spot?

This is my point in my post, that everyone recognizes that the button and SB have very wide ranges (although the SB's is considerably smaller), but not to the exclusion of the higher end of their ranges. We must remember that the button is occasionally allowed to have a legitimate hand when open raising and that the SB is allowed to occasionally be re-raising with a strong hand. It seems as if most players incorrectly assume that the button is exclusively stealing with nothing and that the small blind is exclusively re-stealing with nothing or very lightly......therefore my A3s or the likes is golden. I stand by my statement, that overall against the button and SB's entire raising and re-raising ranges, that this pre-flop cap and /or call is too light.

Even if it's a tighter than normal/less agro button and sb it's still a cap. If they are out of this world tight (like only 3 betting AA and KK) or something ok - fine, fold. That would be a ridiculous outlier situation though.

Vs remotely normal ranges it's a smash cap

that's a bit hyperbolic.

i think the easiest way to look at it is that there's dead money from your blind which means you would only need 22% equity to continue in the event that it's for 3 bets or 25% equity if it's for 4 bets. there's no way in the world you don't have 25% equity against the combined ranges.

just put it into a calculator. it's probably 30-35%ish.

I came to the same result too. It “seems” like it would be much better to continue as a call but I could be wrong.

calling is fine. vs some opponents preferred.

but it's not even a fold vs a co open and sb 3 bet.

Folding vs button/sb 3bet is a large blunder.

So, the hot/cold equity is dependent upon what raising and more importantly 3 betting ranges (SB) you assign to your opponents. When putting in my ranges i got 26% equity in the capping scenario. This on the surface would support capping, however be reminded that hands don't simply end after the pre-flop action. The first point of consideration is that you do not have position against both of your opponents for the remainder of the hand. Secondly and more importantly, are your reverse implied odds with an Ace rag (Ax) type hand. Whenever your opponents badly miss the flop and fold you gain nothing post-flop. When your opponents fold the turn you gain nothing post-flop. When your opponents connect with their stronger Aces or start with any pairs that they can play all the way thru the river and value bet or raise you with, then you loose the maximum. Perhaps i'm alone on this island, but whether you should play any borderline positive "pre-flop" equity hand without giving consideration to how that equity is impacted post-flop (reverse implied odds), seems short sided to me? In other words you must keep in mind whether potential reverse implied odds forces you to start certain type hands (particularly AX ) with slightly more equity than you might think......?

It's not unreasonable to think the reverse implied odds would matter to a point where this wouldn't be a good hand but it's just not the case. After post flop plays out it saves quite a bit off of the 1bb you posted. Maybe if somebody is inexperienced post flop they could possibly screw this up badly enough to make folding better but I'm not going to factor in playing horribly postflop to my responses.

It's really not close. You're giving up at least .5bb in EV if you fold A3s. So, you know, 50bb/100 in winrate at a minimum.

26% doesn't support capping. 25% is the minimum equity needed to continue if you knew it was going 4 bets. You would want around 33% to 4bet yourself, though slightly less would still lean towards a 4bet because the button will put the fourth bet in when he has the top of his range anyways.


wrt positional disadvantage - it is worth something and would shut out very marginal decisions, the contention is that it's not close. 26% seems very low - show your ranges.

if you want to know precisely how much position is worth here you could use a solver for a 2 or 3 way pot for players with identical ranges.

I assigned some pretty conservative preflop ranges to sb and button and came out to 30% equity.

I’ve never played the game but I do know that theoretically they (sb and button) should probably play looser since they are playing the hand in a zero rake environment.

If the equity is in the 30-35% range (as Abbaddabba suggested) then you win about your fair share of the pots. There is a small bet of dead money (your BB) and your share of that is 1/3 of a small bet. Is it really unreasonable (assuming competent postflop play from all 3 players) that you lose more than 1/3 of a small bet in EV postflop due to reverse implied odds?

For clarity: I'm thinking specifically about the fact that when you make top pair, no kicker, you lose a lot when you are dominated, but don't win that much against someone who doesn't have an ace. The low end of your opponents' wide ranges are just not paying you off on ace-high flops.

It's also worth pointing out that as the capper from the BB you have the tightest range of anyone. So, assuming equal play from all 3 players, they have a better read on you than you have on them -- they can play more accurately than you can.